[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: You probably mean that as an insult, but I love the circus!! I have been many, many times. The first time I went was in the 70's, Portland OR, when Gunter Gebel Williams was still doing his thing with leopards and lions and tigers and horses and elephants. There was a master. An absolutely dazzling spectacle for Children of all ages!. The circus rocks! :-) The Circus rocks. Thanks for making lemons into lemonade. And when I was 12 years old, my father took me to the circus, the greatest show on earth. There were clowns and elephants and dancing bears. And a beautiful lady in pink tights flew high above our heads. Is that all there is? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: On Jan 16, 2011, at 5:18 PM, John wrote: Although MMY may not have explained it in public, the siddhis are for attaining the highest level of consciousness. Yes, that's right, Ringling Bros. and Barnum Bailey Consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle... there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. Gawd. The humorlessness of TMers blows my mind. Not to mention the tendency to see nefarious intent in pretty much everything. It was just a joke. Then and now. Sane people are laughing. If you're not, that says something about YOU, not the jokester. In retrospect, this post by Lawson kinda says it all about the You're persecuting me by laughing at me mentality of spiritual take- themselves-too-seriously types. The scene is a room in which a bunch of guys are sitting in chairs, dressed in suits, with their eyes closed, waiting to FLY. Monty Python or any comedy troupe in the world would have had a field day with anything that ludicrous, ferchrissakes. But Joe, trying to lighten things up with a little...dare I say it...levitation levity, was trying to ruin an important moment in their lives and cause ill feelings. The sheer self-importance, humorlessness, and inability to see oneself in a different light and laugh at what one sees blows my mind. Spiritual development is not some take-it-all- as-seriously-as-one-takes-oneself experience. I was fortunate enough to work with teachers who understood this and who devoted a good part of their teaching to getting their students TO laugh at themselves. *Nothing* is more liber- ating than that moment in which you realize that you're laughable, and join in the laughter. But some view that moment as some kind of trauma, and those who attempt to bring a little laughter to the path as intentionally wanting to cause ill feelings, or perpetrate some kind of insult. Go figure. As Joe said so well, moments like this helped him to walk away from a movement that had lost the ability to laugh at itself. Or laugh, period. Some persisted in that oh-so-joyless environment for decades longer, with obvious results.
[FairfieldLife] Golden Globe Winners
For anyone who seriously follows film and TV, the Golden Globe awards are always more of an indication of greatness than the Oscars. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association always has better taste, is less influence by industry nepotism and political correctness, and tends not to overlook the things that the Oscars overlook. Here's who won (and who else was nominated) this year, for your perusal as you're trying to figure out what to watch this winter. The big winner, obviously, is The Social Network. Best Motion Picture - DramaWINNER The Social Network http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/ (2010) Other Nominees: Black Swan http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/ (2010) The Fighter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/ (2010) Inception http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/ (2010) The King's Speech http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/ (2010) Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy WINNER The Kids Are All Right http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/ (2010) Other Nominees: Alice in Wonderland http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/ (2010) Burlesque http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1126591/ (2010/I) Red http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1245526/ (2010/I) The Tourist http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243957/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - DramaWINNER Colin Firth http://www.imdb.com/name/nm147/ for The King's Speech http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/ (2010) Other Nominees: Jesse Eisenberg http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0251986/ for The Social Network http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/ (2010) James Franco http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0290556/ for 127 Hours http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1542344/ (2010) Ryan Gosling http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0331516/ for Blue Valentine http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1120985/ (2010) Mark Wahlberg http://www.imdb.com/name/nm242/ for The Fighter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - DramaWINNER Natalie Portman http://www.imdb.com/name/nm204/ for Black Swan http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947798/ (2010) Other Nominees: Halle Berry http://www.imdb.com/name/nm932/ for Frankie and Alice http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1221208/ (2010) Nicole Kidman http://www.imdb.com/name/nm173/ for Rabbit Hole http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0935075/ (2010) Jennifer Lawrence http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2225369/ for Winter's Bone http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399683/ (2010) Michelle Williams http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0931329/ for Blue Valentine http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1120985/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy WINNER Paul Giamatti http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0316079/ for Barney's Version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1423894/ (2010) Other Nominees: Johnny Depp http://www.imdb.com/name/nm136/ for The Tourist http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243957/ (2010) Johnny Depp http://www.imdb.com/name/nm136/ for Alice in Wonderland http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/ (2010) Jake Gyllenhaal http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0350453/ for Love and Other Drugs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/ (2010) Kevin Spacey http://www.imdb.com/name/nm228/ for Casino Jack http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194417/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy WINNER Annette Bening http://www.imdb.com/name/nm906/ for The Kids Are All Right http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/ (2010) Other Nominees: Anne Hathaway http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004266/ for Love and Other Drugs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758752/ (2010) Angelina Jolie http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001401/ for The Tourist http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243957/ (2010) Julianne Moore http://www.imdb.com/name/nm194/ for The Kids Are All Right http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/ (2010) Emma Stone http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1297015/ for Easy A http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282140/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture WINNER Christian Bale http://www.imdb.com/name/nm288/ for The Fighter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/ (2010) Other Nominees: Michael Douglas http://www.imdb.com/name/nm140/ for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1027718/ (2010) Andrew Garfield http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1940449/ for The Social Network http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/ (2010) Jeremy Renner http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0719637/ for The Town http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0840361/ (2010) Geoffrey Rush http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001691/ for The King's Speech http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/ (2010) Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture WINNER Melissa Leo http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0502425/ for The Fighter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/ (2010) Other Nominees: Amy Adams http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0010736/ for The Fighter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964517/ (2010) Helena Bonham Carter http://www.imdb.com/name/nm307/ for The King's Speech
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... Spiritual development is not some take-it-all- as-seriously-as-one-takes-oneself experience. That just made me ponder on, why (Classical) Sanskrit is so fond of compound words. One reason prolly is that by using compounds one can forget most sandhi_s and case endings. As an example, let's study this suutra: yamaniyamaasanapraaNaayaamapratyaahaaradhaaraNaasamaadhayo 'STaav an.gaani (...aSTau; an.gaani). yama-niyama+aasana-praaNaayaama-pratyaahaara-dhaaraNaa-dhyaana-samaadhayo 'STaav an.gaani (...samaadhayaH[1]; aSTau; an.gaani). Without presenting that as above, as a dvandva (simple coordination) compound it would read (I guess, provided I could recall all the genders correctly) like this: yamo niyama aasanaM praaNaayaamaH pratyaahaaro dhaaraNaa dhyaanaM samaadhish caaSTaav an.gaani. 1. Plural from samaadhi(H); in a dvandva of more than two components the last word gets a plural ending
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ Spiritual development is not some take-it-all- as-seriously-as-one-takes-oneself experience. That just made me ponder on, why (Classical) Sanskrit is so fond of compound words. One reason prolly is that by using compounds one can forget most sandhi_s and case endings. As an example, let's study this suutra: Let's not, and say we did. :-) I just string words together into compound hyphenates because it's fun.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: Nice and thoughtful post. Thank you. Neat conversation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip That seems to me the most logical explanation. I mean, he'd have been taking a big risk in promising something so spectacular if he knew he couldn't deliver it. He was always doing it. There's a difference between a promise he knew he couldn't deliver and a promise he didn't know *whether* he could deliver; that's what I'm trying to get at. I know. I anticipated that in your question. That's why I said said, that I would deceive you pretending I know ;-) The question is really about intent: I used the word deception, in the sense that we were made to believe things that couldn't be delivered. When I used it, I used it in a more or less passive way, saying we were deceived, rather then 'He deceived us'. That may sound like hairsplitting, but I simply cannot *know* Maharishis intent and beliefs. And I do not attribute to him any conscious bad intent, not at all! I think his intent was good, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for him, but I still beg to differ with him on a number of basic issues. The way I see him, and from a number of internal quotes from people close to him I come to the conclusion, that he liked to 'trick' people. This is a common knowledge still from my TM time and it is the positive still in it TMers who think that he 'tricked' them into doing things, they perceived as good. Flying would be one example. Giving false promises is seen as an example of this tricking. I think anyone who was in the inner movement for a number of years is familiar with that. It is seen as the end justifying the means. The promises where soon getting enlightened, CC or consequently higher states, flying, world peace, AoE, success and public acknowledgement of the movement, physical longevity (through very special Ayurvedic preparations, some containg mercury) etc. The way I understand Maharishi, his view of Truth was multi-leveled. The absolute Truth is only Brahman, smaller relative truths exist in an ascending level, and it was okay to sacrifice a 'lesser' truth for a Higher one. That was his understanding as far as I can see. For example, he purportedly said about another guru, who is now in vogue with many ex-TMers, that he is even more ruthless than he himself. That's what a friend told me! Now, there is definitely a sense of humor and a degree of self reflection in this. And, as I see it now, there is a seed of corruption in this. I also do see its value to some degree - but its the end justifying the means. The point here, that you can say in its defense, is that the pure Truth, is unacceptable to the ignorant, and therefor he has to be tricked, stepwise, to come to the right understanding. This is called using the right means. You could also say, the quote of the Gita, saying, that the wise does not delude the ignorant, meaning just that: the highest Truth would just confuse people. As Maharishi was always going for the masses, this is what he did. He did take big risks along the latter line, but I'd be very surprised if he'd made promises that he *knew* would crash and burn. Why make promises, when you do not know if you can deliver? Either he believed it firmly himself, then he was delusional himself, and you may question how good his siddhi of forknowledge was, or he was deceiving others. Or it was something inbetween; he thought he could deliver in the long run, but promised that it was soon. Either way, in my opinion he didn't have bad intent, but from my POV now, he shouldn't have done it. He created this whole movement bubble, this movement maya, as my Purusha friends would say. He was lucky the experiences were enjoyable enough for many folks to want to continue after it became apparent they weren't going to be flying anytime soon. He knew that would be the case. Well, he didn't know until he'd started the program! I meant to say, that he always knew that people would have experiences, no matter what. Many times he asked people about specific states of experiences, of enlightenment, and their were always people raising their hands. Later on he would say, that poeple just make experiences up. Thats what I heard. Do you think he meant *none* of the reported experiences were genuine? I don't know what he meant. I didn't hear it myself, but only from a friend who was present. But thats the way he said it. That means that most or at least many of these high sounding, flashy experiences were just imagined and made up. That doesn't mean that there are no experiences at all that are valid or important. It just means a tendency by people to 'produce' experiences on request. snip IMO if you just go to
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I guess it depends from which side you are looking at Maharishi. Some here prefer to always look at his backside. :-) No prejudice against gays please!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:37 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: You probably mean that as an insult, but I love the circus!! I have been many, many times. The first time I went was in the 70's, Portland OR, when Gunter Gebel Williams was still doing his thing with leopards and lions and tigers and horses and elephants. There was a master. An absolutely dazzling spectacle for Children of all ages!. The circus rocks! :-) The Circus rocks. Thanks for making lemons into lemonade. The abuse that goes on with animals in many (if not most) traveling circus' would be one of the primary reasons I would boycott a circus. It's just not something I support on ethical or moral grounds. Hey but whatever turns you guys on...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: [...] Just as a small follow up: the siddhis were already a goal displacement to the original goal of enlightenment. The group effect, was a goal displacement for the siddhis. The siddhis (as goals in themselves) were just an intermediate station of a larger goal displacement from individual to collective enlightenment. (Some might argue that enlightenment was a goal displacement to just living happy and without struggle) I think that is completely silly. MMY presented group TM/TM-Sidhis practice as the fastest way for the individual to evolve, and counted the individual consciousness as the unit of group consciousness. Sure he did. Nevertheless a goal displacement occured, it's actually part of the game, to connect the old goal with the new one. Something new is introduces as a means to fulfill the old goal, so new intermediary goals are introduces, which slowely take the place of the old goals, as they are said to be conditional. Siddhis are a test of enlightenment, without which *complete* enlightenment is not possible. Raising world consciousness is presented as conditional to the full development of siddhis. Thus slowly the emphasis shifts to other goals. Next come Ayurveda, Jyotish, Yagyas, Vastu and the whole package. If I may piggyback, I was going to comment on this from the same post: If you had an individual scheme of enlightenment, you were told that we are doing it for the world, we are like soldiers for world peace, that we are karmically connected to the world. Sort of like the Bodhisattva ideal, but TM movement version. Skip your own individual enlightenment, and wait till day X when we get all enlightened. For the record, I never encountered anything like this. Because you were not there at the time. You were only there at a time when nobody expected to fly anytime soon. My ex-boss at TM told me to stay at staff at least half a year more (because he needed me) until we all fly! I wanted to go to a center and teach. I can laugh at this today. I left anyway and came back later. When I had doubts, because enlightenment was still not there, he (and others) would just tell me this: we are doing it for the whole world, we are like soldiers, and we soon have the major breakthrough and the age of enlightenment. This as common thinking in the inner movement. If you did the siddhis, as they were promoted as fast track to enlightenment, still expectations were raised that you would fly soon, and you would actually hop everyday, so inevitably you had expectations of learning to fly, especially since the Maharishi said, that it was only psychological (apart from world consciousness) that we didn't actually hover. The next thing was, that only if world consciousness was sufficiently raised, could we hope to fly, and for this we had to participate in group practise. We imagined that the world had to change to emulate the protected atmosphere we were living in, we couldn't live 'outside' anymore, the world was too stressful, we had to wait for heaven on earth to come. When I took the TM-Sidhis, they were being promoted as the fast track to individual enlightenment. That there was purportedly a group synergistic effect on the world didn't take anything away from progress toward individual enlightnment; if anything, that was said to enhance one's own progress. Maybe the pitch changed at some point, but I sure never heard anything along Bodhisattva-vow lines. That was just a comparison I made.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
One more clue, why that is so, is the fact how it developed: there was never any emphasis on group meditation before the sidhis, that is approximately before 1977. Reading back in this thread, no, that is not accurate. Group meditations were very much part of the experience of TM and an aspect of the practice. In experience, a lot like going to a group practice with conservative Quakers in their quietist meetings for worship or out in the group meditations that the Yogananda people host at their California facilities The Yogananda folks practice a silent meditation and others are free to sit with them too. Their group meditations are long and deeply powerful spiritually. That's the experience. There is an experience that way that is real to the practice of meditation in groups. I believe that because I know that by experience. May be you don't. The TM centers in their day that were successful very much had an active schedule of group meditations all through the 1970's. They worked because there was an experience to it that is compelling spiritually. That time all changed with the change over to TM being about the Siddhis. We were told to actually not spend much time on meditators with the change over. In some of the last organizational meetings with Jerry Jarvis before he left the scene, he was prioritizing towards ignoring the meditator that way too. In my book it is hard to ignore the reality of group meditations. It's why I believe it is timely to keep the research going. Large groups and science. The experience is frankly substantial and the science is so much better now. Let it happen. Facilitate it. It's just too bad the TM-Rajas have goofed it up so bad. Particularly the fat ones, for so long. But also those other colluders with their money through the years. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: I think that group-program, from its very outset, was never meant to create world-peace or anything. It was always a control mechanism, and that shows. If group programs would work, the chinese could have never massacred tibetan monastries, who had thousands of people meditating together, on a permanent basis. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I was also around back then in 1977, and agree with you. One more clue, why that is so, is the fact how it developed: there was never any emphasis on group meditation before the sidhis, that is approximately before 1977. Until that time people simply meditated in their rooms, and that was perfectly alright. With the introduction of sidhis, and especially flying, foam matrazes were needed, and having people hopping in their beds, with the consequent damages was simply no option. Originally people came together only for flying sessions into a flying room or tent. Exactly. Only around the years 1977, towards the end, beginning of 1978 the whole ideology of group- practise for world peace, super-radience or how-ever it was called developed. Exactly again. I bailed from the TMO towards the end of 1977, after coming back from my TM-siddhis course. Up until the time I left, there was never a *hint* of the Maharishi Effect or You're doing it for world peace. That was all invented later, as you say. Interesting. I knew quite a few people then, who left right after the Siddhis/Enlightenment course,some right away to India to either Muktananda or Osho. At the time I was still thoroughly immersed in the TM movement. I would have bailed out some 4 years later, but ironically, it was meeting a saint, who made me stay in the movement some years more, and actually have both worlds, until it became clear which way to go. My theory as to *why* it was invented is a little different than yours. Yes, group practice is a control mechanism, and an enforced test of fealty (You're either with us or against us, and check- ing attendance allows us to see which), but the whole ME You're doing it for the world thang was not trotted out until people had started to realize that the siddhis had very little payoff for them, personally. There was no there there. People were starting to quit and drift away from the TMO, because they'd paid big bucks for its most expensive program, and it did diddleysquat for them. Certainly the promises were to high by far. We all thought we would fly within a few month, get lots of initiations. When I first heard of siddhis there were reports of people waking through walls, getting invisible, (I still got that sutra, it was
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: On Jan 17, 2011, at 2:37 AM, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: You probably mean that as an insult, but I love the circus!! I have been many, many times. The first time I went was in the 70's, Portland OR, when Gunter Gebel Williams was still doing his thing with leopards and lions and tigers and horses and elephants. There was a master. An absolutely dazzling spectacle for Children of all ages!. The circus rocks! :-) The Circus rocks. Thanks for making lemons into lemonade. The abuse that goes on with animals in many (if not most) traveling circus' would be one of the primary reasons I would boycott a circus. It's just not something I support on ethical or moral grounds. Hey but whatever turns you guys on...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Maharishi's Lila
the charm of the lucid magic of internet --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: Yes, which is why people are pouring into TM Centers and absolutely swamping them with requests for initiations. snip Dream on. Sal Get in line for the sunshine .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQF-a3Osw4
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Hi Buck, I have a lot you in mind when writing in this thread. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck dhamiltony2k5@... wrote: One more clue, why that is so, is the fact how it developed: there was never any emphasis on group meditation before the sidhis, that is approximately before 1977. Reading back in this thread, no, that is not accurate. Group meditations were very much part of the experience of TM and an aspect of the practice. In experience, a lot like going to a group practice with conservative Quakers in their quietist meetings for worship or out in the group meditations that the Yogananda people host at their California facilities The Yogananda folks practice a silent meditation and others are free to sit with them too. Their group meditations are long and deeply powerful spiritually. That's the experience. I was only refering to TM not to other groups. In fact many groups stressed on group practice, but TM didn't until the arrival of siddhis. But those other groups have no concept about group practice changing the world at large as far as I know. There is an experience that way that is real to the practice of meditation in groups. I believe that because I know that by experience. May be you don't. I know it very well, and it was part of my dilema when I had to leave the movement. I know it is a great support, but at the same time, I learned that there a psychological inhibitions, which make you dependend on it. I had to learn to have the same experiences I used to have in a big group outisde in daily life even outside of meditation. The TM centers in their day that were successful very much had an active schedule of group meditations all through the 1970's. They worked because there was an experience to it that is compelling spiritually. The group meditations in centers were usually only 10 minutes and 'extra' that is they were not substituting the regular 2x20. They mainly served as a checking procedure with eyes closing and opening in the beginning. There was no concept about it being an influence on collective consciousness in particular, they were just a help for the people to stabilize their meditation. Similarly, on our TTC, we meditated collectively for 5 minutes before lectures, but the rounding was all done in private rooms. There was a group room for those who wanted it, and out of 200 CP's 20 used it. You were supposed to use it, when you were unstable. So the whole thing was more for the individaul then for the collective. That time all changed with the change over to TM being about the Siddhis. We were told to actually not spend much time on meditators with the change over. In some of the last organizational meetings with Jerry Jarvis before he left the scene, he was prioritizing towards ignoring the meditator that way too. As far as I heard it then, Jerry was actually opposed to this whole shift of emphasis from the individual to the collective. I sa him at his last visit in Seelisberg and overheard, and overheard a remark he made that the group consciousness can actually be something, well more negative. It's clear he didn't support this shift really, and I think it was one of the main reasons he left (or had to leave) In my book it is hard to ignore the reality of group meditations. I think that is true for the individuals who participate. And as a side note to Willy: Traditionally, in the vedas, collective influence on the society was reserved for yagyas. That is indeed very common, and you will find many hindu based organizations who do yagyas for world peace, and many people partake. But these are not silent meditations. These are ceremonies propitating the respective devas, responsible for the respective area to be influenced. What Guru dev conducted, AFAIK, was a yagya. I think that people were reciting the Gayatri aloud. Different from an individual meditation process done in groups. With yagyas, intent, samkapla, is very important. There are special days assigned to such tasks, astrologically advantageous. I TM Sidhi group programs, there are no devatas invoked and there is no samkalpa, or invocation at the beginning of the event. So there is a difference. It's why I believe it is timely to keep the research going. Large groups and science. The experience is frankly substantial and the science is so much better now. Let it happen. Facilitate it. It's just too bad the TM-Rajas have goofed it up so bad. Particularly the fat ones, for so long. But also those other colluders with their money through the years. -Buck in FF --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@ wrote: I think that
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
We get it dude, for the one millionth time: Barry good, TM bad, Barry good, TMers bad, Barry good, Maharishi bad, Barry's teachers good, TM teachers bad, Barry's current location good, all other locations bad, Barry's self-importance good, everyone else's self-importance bad. Check. Do you have *anything* inclusive to say, ever?? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle... there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. Gawd. The humorlessness of TMers blows my mind. Not to mention the tendency to see nefarious intent in pretty much everything. It was just a joke. Then and now. Sane people are laughing. If you're not, that says something about YOU, not the jokester. In retrospect, this post by Lawson kinda says it all about the You're persecuting me by laughing at me mentality of spiritual take- themselves-too-seriously types. The scene is a room in which a bunch of guys are sitting in chairs, dressed in suits, with their eyes closed, waiting to FLY. Monty Python or any comedy troupe in the world would have had a field day with anything that ludicrous, ferchrissakes. But Joe, trying to lighten things up with a little...dare I say it...levitation levity, was trying to ruin an important moment in their lives and cause ill feelings. The sheer self-importance, humorlessness, and inability to see oneself in a different light and laugh at what one sees blows my mind. Spiritual development is not some take-it-all- as-seriously-as-one-takes-oneself experience. I was fortunate enough to work with teachers who understood this and who devoted a good part of their teaching to getting their students TO laugh at themselves. *Nothing* is more liber- ating than that moment in which you realize that you're laughable, and join in the laughter. But some view that moment as some kind of trauma, and those who attempt to bring a little laughter to the path as intentionally wanting to cause ill feelings, or perpetrate some kind of insult. Go figure. As Joe said so well, moments like this helped him to walk away from a movement that had lost the ability to laugh at itself. Or laugh, period. Some persisted in that oh-so-joyless environment for decades longer, with obvious results.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two quotes from Helen Keller
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of authfriend Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:06 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Two quotes from Helen Keller Was she an atheist? I sent this out to my humor list and someone responded: “one of my favorite atheists!” Those quotes don’t sound very atheistic to me. I posted this awhile back...it's a clip from a 1930 newsreel of Keller and Annie Sullivan, demonstrating how Sullivan had taught Keller to speak. It's just incredibly charming, especially at the very end. It shows her sense of humor and her wonderful spirit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv1uLfF35Uw --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@... wrote: I sense a holy passion pouring down from the springs of Infinity. . . . Bound to suns and planets by invisible cords, I feel the flame of eternity in my soul. Here, in the midst of the every-day air, I sense the rush of ethereal rains. I am conscious of the splendor that binds all things of earth to all things of heaven ‹ immured by silence and darkness, I possess the light which shall give me vision a thousandfold when death sets me free. There is in the blind as in the seeing an Absolute which gives truth to what we know to be true, order to what is orderly, beauty to the beautiful, touchableness to what is tangible. If this is granted, it follows that this Absolute is not imperfect, incomplete, partial. . . . Thus deafness and blindness do not exist in the immaterial mind, which is philosophically the real world, but are banished with the perishable material senses. Reality, of which visible things are the symbol, shines before my mind. While I walk about my chamber with unsteady steps, my spirit sweeps skyward on eagle wings and looks out with unquenchable vision upon the world of eternal beauty. Helen Keller 1880-1968
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
No dude. I was part of the group, not someone standing outside the door. I was laughing WITH everyone and at myself, not AT everyone. It was a funny joke then and remains so for me, and I imagine for some of those who were there. I certainly heard about it for several years after that, usually accompanied by belly laughs. You can laugh at yourself, can't you Lawson? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle...there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. ... L
[FairfieldLife] A ray of AoE hope for herbivorous guys like BillyG
One wonders whether Global Good News will pick up on this story and beam it out over the airwaves as a sign of the impending Age Of Enlightenment. One thing for sure...BillyG will probably not see it with the same sense of alarm as the Japanese government does. :-) More seriously, I'd probably see this study's results as being linked more to overcrowding than anything else. Almost all animals show a diminishment of sex drive when living in overcrowded environments. Japan is overcrowded. Either that, or Japanese boys have been spending far too much time staring at computers and not enough time staring at Japanese girls. If the Japanese government is that concerned about their diminishing birthrate, I'll volunteer to help ..I have a thing for Japanese women. :-) Doncha just love the term herbivorous, though? Japanese Teens, Married Couples Losing Sex Drive: Report http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/japanese-men-losing-sex-d_n_80\ 9271.html Now for some frigid news from Japan that has nothing to do with winter temperatures: a new government-commissioned study finds that young Japanese men are losing their interest in sex, yet another warning sign in a nation notorious for its low birth rate. According http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/lf_afp/japansocietysexpopulation to the AFP, a whopping 36.1 percent of teenage boys between the ages of 16-19 said they had little to no interest in sex, and in some cases even despised it, more than twice the 2008 figure of 17.5 percent. Futhermore, the survey, conducted http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110113p2a00m0na006000c.html in September 2010, reportedly found that 83.7 percent of Japanese men who turned 20 this year were not dating anyone, while 49.3 percent said they had never had a girlfriend. Girls, it seems, are suffering from a similar lack of heat: 59 percent in the same age group felt the same way, up 12 percentage points from 2008. Kunio Kitamura, head of the clinic of the Japan Family Planning Association http://www.jfpa.or.jp/ which took part in the survey, said the data confirms a wider social belief that younger Japanese men are becoming herbivorous, a label attached to passive men who do not actively seek women and sex. Many younger people were opting to delay starting a family due to the perceived burden on their finances, lifestyles and careers. The findings seem to reflect the increasing shallowness of human relations in today's busy society. Kitamura is quoted http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/life/no-sex-japanese-teens-boys-increasingly\ -show-no-interest-521163 by CNN as saying. The study, which reportedly http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/01/13/no-sex-please-were-young-\ japanese-men/ surveyed 1,301 people aged 16 to 49, yielded a handful of other surprises: 40.8 percent of married people said they had not had sex in the past month, up from 36.5 percent in the 2008 survey and 31.9 percent in the 2004 survey, while nearly 50 percent of married people older than 40 years old said they have not had sex in the past month. Some participants claimed work fatigue and reluctance to have sex after childbirth, while others said they can't be bothered. Obviously, the most important reason for Japan's declining birth rate is that people are not having sex, Kitamura told http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8257400/Third-of-y\ oung-Japanese-men-not-interested-in-sex.html the Telegraph. Combined with the rising number of elderly people, this population imbalance is a major problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Two quotes from Helen Keller
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer rick@... wrote: Was she an atheist? I sent this out to my humor list and someone responded: âone of my favorite atheists!â Those quotes donât sound very atheistic to me. Gee, no, she was most definitely *not* an atheist. You can find dozens of quotes from her referring to her belief in God, e.g.: Deep, solemn optimism, it seems to me, should spring from this firm belief in the presence of God in the individual; not a remote, unapproachable governor of the universe, but a God who is very near every one of us, who is present not only in earth, sea and sky, but also in every pure and noble impulse of our hearts, 'the source and centre of all minds, their only point of rest.' Basically, she seems to have been a mystic (as the quotes you posted suggest). She was a follower of Swedenborg, who taught a mystical version of Christianity. She wrote a book called My Religion about Swedenborgianism (later revised and retitled The Light in My Darkness). She wrote of Swedenborg that he was one of the noblest champions true Christianity has ever known. BTW, while she did want her writings on Socialism to be taken seriously, she didn't at all resent being a spokesperson for the blind and deaf; to the contrary, she spent most of her life promoting their cause. What she didn't like was being recognized *only* as someone who had triumphed over disability, rather than as a thinker in her own right. At one point her writings on Socialism were criticized as the product of a mind limited by her inability to see and hear--in other words, it was said that she would never promote such foolishness as Socialism if she had all her faculties. This, needless to say, annoyed her greatly.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: No dude. I was part of the group, not someone standing outside the door. I was laughing WITH everyone and at myself, not AT everyone. It was a funny joke then and remains so for me, and I imagine for some of those who were there. I certainly heard about it for several years after that, usually accompanied by belly laughs. You can laugh at yourself, can't you Lawson? At times. However, to expect everyone else to laugh at themselves is a bit much, don't you agree? For many, religion or no, the yogic flying course is a very important milestone. To poke fun of it *during* the course, from within the course, is obviously going to be seen from a negative perspective by many people. Same thing would happen if you streaked the stage to accept your PhD. YOU might think it funny, but don't expect all the other PhD recipients to laugh along with you. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle...there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. ... L
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, blusc0ut no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip There's a difference between a promise he knew he couldn't deliver and a promise he didn't know *whether* he could deliver; that's what I'm trying to get at. I know. I anticipated that in your question. That's why I said said, that I would deceive you pretending I know ;-) The question is really about intent: I used the word deception, in the sense that we were made to believe things that couldn't be delivered. When I used it, I used it in a more or less passive way, saying we were deceived, rather then 'He deceived us'. That may sound like hairsplitting, but I simply cannot *know* Maharishis intent and beliefs. And I do not attribute to him any conscious bad intent, not at all! I think his intent was good, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for him, but I still beg to differ with him on a number of basic issues. That seems entirely reasonable. I have my own issues with him. The way I see him, and from a number of internal quotes from people close to him I come to the conclusion, that he liked to 'trick' people. This is a common knowledge still from my TM time and it is the positive still in it TMers who think that he 'tricked' them into doing things, they perceived as good. Flying would be one example. Giving false promises is seen as an example of this tricking. I think anyone who was in the inner movement for a number of years is familiar with that. It is seen as the end justifying the means. The promises where soon getting enlightened, CC or consequently higher states, flying, world peace, AoE, success and public acknowledgement of the movement, physical longevity (through very special Ayurvedic preparations, some containg mercury) etc. The way I understand Maharishi, his view of Truth was multi-leveled. The absolute Truth is only Brahman, smaller relative truths exist in an ascending level, and it was okay to sacrifice a 'lesser' truth for a Higher one. That was his understanding as far as I can see. I think that's exactly right, from what I know of him. I went briefly into something very similar below. Basically, relative truth is fungible. For example, he purportedly said about another guru, who is now in vogue with many ex-TMers, that he is even more ruthless than he himself. That's what a friend told me! Now, there is definitely a sense of humor and a degree of self reflection in this. And, as I see it now, there is a seed of corruption in this. I also do see its value to some degree - but its the end justifying the means. Yes. And sometimes the end *does* justify the means, but it's tricky. (Heh, that's the same word you used above.) The point here, that you can say in its defense, is that the pure Truth, is unacceptable to the ignorant, and therefor he has to be tricked, stepwise, to come to the right understanding. This is called using the right means. You could also say, the quote of the Gita, saying, that the wise does not delude the ignorant, meaning just that: the highest Truth would just confuse people. As Maharishi was always going for the masses, this is what he did. Exactly. You and I think along the same lines in this regard. He did take big risks along the latter line, but I'd be very surprised if he'd made promises that he *knew* would crash and burn. Why make promises, when you do not know if you can deliver? Either he believed it firmly himself, then he was delusional himself, and you may question how good his siddhi of forknowledge was, I have a theory about that siddhi: It works only on a need-to-know basis. or he was deceiving others. Or it was something inbetween; he thought he could deliver in the long run, but promised that it was soon. I think he did believe it would happen very quickly. Either way, in my opinion he didn't have bad intent, but from my POV now, he shouldn't have done it. He created this whole movement bubble, this movement maya, as my Purusha friends would say. I wonder if part of the problem is that he wasn't attached to the results, whereas everybody else was. If he truly was in some higher state of consciousness, and if knowledge is different in different states, it's pretty futile to attempt to psych him out, worse than trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. He was lucky the experiences were enjoyable enough for many folks to want to continue after it became apparent they weren't going to be flying anytime soon. He knew that would be the case. Well, he didn't know until he'd started the program! I meant to say, that he always knew that people would have experiences, no matter what. How could he know? How could he know they'd be satisfying enough to keep people doing the program? snip But we agree there is control? There are boards who control people, and there are lists of
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
So, the fact that only 25% of the people got Joe's little prank in the middle of what might have been (by their beliefs/expectations) the most important period in their life is a valid reason to walk away from the Movement. Likewise, my pointing out the lack of clothes concerning Joe's expectations about everyone to share his humor during a (for everyone else) a solemn moment, says something about ME, rather than about Joe. Sure, whatever. When some dude at your wedding stands up to object and says your fiance and he are already married, and then suddenly says just kidding! he will justifiably be offended at your lack of a sense of humor. L. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle... there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. Gawd. The humorlessness of TMers blows my mind. Not to mention the tendency to see nefarious intent in pretty much everything. It was just a joke. Then and now. Sane people are laughing. If you're not, that says something about YOU, not the jokester. In retrospect, this post by Lawson kinda says it all about the You're persecuting me by laughing at me mentality of spiritual take- themselves-too-seriously types. The scene is a room in which a bunch of guys are sitting in chairs, dressed in suits, with their eyes closed, waiting to FLY. Monty Python or any comedy troupe in the world would have had a field day with anything that ludicrous, ferchrissakes. But Joe, trying to lighten things up with a little...dare I say it...levitation levity, was trying to ruin an important moment in their lives and cause ill feelings. The sheer self-importance, humorlessness, and inability to see oneself in a different light and laugh at what one sees blows my mind. Spiritual development is not some take-it-all- as-seriously-as-one-takes-oneself experience. I was fortunate enough to work with teachers who understood this and who devoted a good part of their teaching to getting their students TO laugh at themselves. *Nothing* is more liber- ating than that moment in which you realize that you're laughable, and join in the laughter. But some view that moment as some kind of trauma, and those who attempt to bring a little laughter to the path as intentionally wanting to cause ill feelings, or perpetrate some kind of insult. Go figure. As Joe said so well, moments like this helped him to walk away from a movement that had lost the ability to laugh at itself. Or laugh, period. Some persisted in that oh-so-joyless environment for decades longer, with obvious results.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A ray of AoE hope for herbivorous guys like BillyG
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: One wonders whether Global Good News will pick up on this story and beam it out over the airwaves as a sign of the impending Age Of Enlightenment. FWIW, back in May of 2010, GGN did report Japan's falling birthrate--under Flops.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle... there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. Gawd. The humorlessness of TMers blows my mind. Not to mention the tendency to see nefarious intent in pretty much everything. It was just a joke. Then and now. Sane people are laughing. If you're not, that says something about YOU, not the jokester. I might have laughed. I might not have. The point is that to expect everyone else to laugh at your joke and when they don't, to use their lack of humor during an important situation as an excuse to beat feet because it just proves how awful everyone else is, is, well... See my response to your other post. Lawson
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. That others joined in was even more hilarious since laughter is contagious. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: No dude. I was part of the group, not someone standing outside the door. I was laughing WITH everyone and at myself, not AT everyone. It was a funny joke then and remains so for me, and I imagine for some of those who were there. I certainly heard about it for several years after that, usually accompanied by belly laughs. You can laugh at yourself, can't you Lawson? At times. However, to expect everyone else to laugh at themselves is a bit much, don't you agree? For many, religion or no, the yogic flying course is a very important milestone. To poke fun of it *during* the course, from within the course, is obviously going to be seen from a negative perspective by many people. Same thing would happen if you streaked the stage to accept your PhD. YOU might think it funny, but don't expect all the other PhD recipients to laugh along with you. L --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I was around when the first sutra/flying attempts were made. We were all sitting in chairs in a circle...there was no sitting on foam mats at that time. (This was in one of the hotels around Lake LucernI forget which now.) This would have been probably late 1975. [...] Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Well, for most of the rest in the room, you were poking fun at a terribly important moment in their lives which almost certainly was going to cause ill-feeling and you must have realized this at some level, right? And you're still trying to pretend what you did was just a joke 35 years later. ... L
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: We get it dude, for the one millionth time: Barry good, TM bad, Barry good, TMers bad, Barry good, Maharishi bad, Barry's teachers good, TM teachers bad, Barry's current location good, all other locations bad, Barry's self-importance good, everyone else's self-importance bad. Check. Do you have *anything* inclusive to say, ever?? Waitaminute ! This Turq-fellow spent years with a guru who probably lifted him for a good deal of money, was on drugs and who eventually committed suicide. It's unfair to expect such a fellow to be cheerful, fair, without vile and bitterness, positive or inclusive !
Re: [FairfieldLife] With TM there's no need to suffer, says film director Martin Scorsese
On 01/16/2011 12:57 PM, merlin wrote: With TM there's no need to suffer, says Hollywood film director Martin Scorsese. http://www.globalgoodnews.com/health-news-a.html?art=12948564553725902 So you've not had any suffering since starting TM?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Golden Globe Winners
On 01/17/2011 01:13 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: For anyone who seriously follows film and TV, the Golden Globe awards are always more of an indication of greatness than the Oscars. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association always has better taste, is less influence by industry nepotism and political correctness, and tends not to overlook the things that the Oscars overlook. Here's who won (and who else was nominated) this year, for your perusal as you're trying to figure out what to watch this winter. The big winner, obviously, is The Social Network. Which I watched last week and reviewed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/266555
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: I might have laughed. I might not have. The point is that to expect everyone else to laugh at your joke and when they don't, to use their lack of humor during an important situation as an excuse to beat feet because it just proves how awful everyone else is, is, well... The really interesting thing is that those here who take the importance of being able to laugh at oneself most seriously have a *terrible* time doing so themselves. Some of us find *that* pretty amusing...
Re: [FairfieldLife] A ray of AoE hope for herbivorous guys like BillyG
On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:33 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: One wonders whether Global Good News will pick up on this story and beam it out over the airwaves as a sign of the impending Age Of Enlightenment. One thing for sure...BillyG will probably not see it with the same sense of alarm as the Japanese government does. :-) More seriously, I'd probably see this study's results as being linked more to overcrowding than anything else. Almost all animals show a diminishment of sex drive when living in overcrowded environments. Japan is overcrowded. Either that, or Japanese boys have been spending far too much time staring at computers and not enough time staring at Japanese girls. If the Japanese government is that concerned about their diminishing birthrate, I'll volunteer to help ..I have a thing for Japanese women. :-) Doncha just love the term herbivorous, though? I'd bet your computer theory isn't far off, Barry. I'd guess that the huge pressure on Japanese kids, which I'm sure accelerates at adolescence, has as much to do with it as overcrowding. And with the diminished sex drive would also be an increase in alcoholism and other social ills. It's really pretty sad. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
Glad to hear it. Yes, if properly cared for, animals in zoos and circuses have a far less stressful and longer life than they do in the wild - regular meals and no predators. The same has been said of sidhas - lol. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A ray of AoE hope for herbivorous guys like BillyG
If the Japanese government is that concerned about their diminishing birthrate, I'll volunteer to help ..I have a thing for Japanese women. :-) TMI dude. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: One wonders whether Global Good News will pick up on this story and beam it out over the airwaves as a sign of the impending Age Of Enlightenment. One thing for sure...BillyG will probably not see it with the same sense of alarm as the Japanese government does. :-) More seriously, I'd probably see this study's results as being linked more to overcrowding than anything else. Almost all animals show a diminishment of sex drive when living in overcrowded environments. Japan is overcrowded. Either that, or Japanese boys have been spending far too much time staring at computers and not enough time staring at Japanese girls. If the Japanese government is that concerned about their diminishing birthrate, I'll volunteer to help ..I have a thing for Japanese women. :-) Doncha just love the term herbivorous, though? Japanese Teens, Married Couples Losing Sex Drive: Report http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/japanese-men-losing-sex-d_n_80\ 9271.html Now for some frigid news from Japan that has nothing to do with winter temperatures: a new government-commissioned study finds that young Japanese men are losing their interest in sex, yet another warning sign in a nation notorious for its low birth rate. According http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110114/lf_afp/japansocietysexpopulation to the AFP, a whopping 36.1 percent of teenage boys between the ages of 16-19 said they had little to no interest in sex, and in some cases even despised it, more than twice the 2008 figure of 17.5 percent. Futhermore, the survey, conducted http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110113p2a00m0na006000c.html in September 2010, reportedly found that 83.7 percent of Japanese men who turned 20 this year were not dating anyone, while 49.3 percent said they had never had a girlfriend. Girls, it seems, are suffering from a similar lack of heat: 59 percent in the same age group felt the same way, up 12 percentage points from 2008. Kunio Kitamura, head of the clinic of the Japan Family Planning Association http://www.jfpa.or.jp/ which took part in the survey, said the data confirms a wider social belief that younger Japanese men are becoming herbivorous, a label attached to passive men who do not actively seek women and sex. Many younger people were opting to delay starting a family due to the perceived burden on their finances, lifestyles and careers. The findings seem to reflect the increasing shallowness of human relations in today's busy society. Kitamura is quoted http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/life/no-sex-japanese-teens-boys-increasingly\ -show-no-interest-521163 by CNN as saying. The study, which reportedly http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/01/13/no-sex-please-were-young-\ japanese-men/ surveyed 1,301 people aged 16 to 49, yielded a handful of other surprises: 40.8 percent of married people said they had not had sex in the past month, up from 36.5 percent in the 2008 survey and 31.9 percent in the 2004 survey, while nearly 50 percent of married people older than 40 years old said they have not had sex in the past month. Some participants claimed work fatigue and reluctance to have sex after childbirth, while others said they can't be bothered. Obviously, the most important reason for Japan's declining birth rate is that people are not having sex, Kitamura told http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8257400/Third-of-y\ oung-Japanese-men-not-interested-in-sex.html the Telegraph. Combined with the rising number of elderly people, this population imbalance is a major problem.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. Rory, given your prowess at whispering, I wonder if you could do me a favor. I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all. That's because *no one*, including the brussels sprouts wants to put any part of themselves into your mouth! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. Rory, given your prowess at whispering, I wonder if you could do me a favor. I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: Rory, given your prowess at whispering, I wonder if you could do me a favor. I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? Actually, I have checked on that intermittently over the years, and most of them (somewhat to my surprise) appeared quite happy to be assimilated. Though predominantly vegetarian myself, I do not particularly share the sentiments of many vegetarians regarding the supposed superiority of vegetables over animals for eating. Though vegetables are arguably lighter and easier to assimilate than animals, and though I did find a vegetarian diet quite helpful at some points along the path, from here anyhow as far as I can see it is all Us, and we are all constantly engaged in auto-cannibalism :-) I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all. Probably because you were insulting them in some way. Seriously, though, brussels sprouts do appear to have a bit of that curmudgeonly essence about them, don't they? They always remind me of old men's cigar-stumps :-) .
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:02 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all. That's because *no one*, including the brussels sprouts wants to put any part of themselves into your mouth! :-) This turning into some kind of fetish for you, Jim? Again? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Right-Wing Terrorism: Murders Grow on the Far Right Four Decades After Martin Luther King Jr.
Right-Wing Terrorism: Murders Grow on the Far Right Four Decades After Martin Luther King Jr. The American landscape is pockmarked by the wreckage left behind by angry, white male extremists. January 16, 2011 | The landscape of America is littered with bodies. They’ve been gunned down in Tucson, shot to death at the Pentagon, and blown away at the Holocaust Museum, as well as in Wichita, Knoxville, Pittsburgh, Brockton, and Okaloosa County, Florida. Total body count for these incidents: 19 dead, 26 wounded. Not much, you might say, when taken in the context of about 30,000 gun-related deaths annually nationwide. As it happens, though, these murders over the past couple of years have some common threads. All involved white gunmen with ties to racist or right-wing groups or who harbored deep suspicions of “the government.” Many involved the killing of police officers. In Pittsburgh, three police officers were shot and killed, while two were wounded in an April 2009 gun battle with Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist fearful that President Obama planned to curtail his gun rights. In Okaloosa County, Florida, two officers were slain in April 2009 in an altercation with Joshua Cartwright, whose abused wife told the police that her husband “believed that the U.S. Government was conspiring against him” and that he was “severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President.” At the Pentagon, an anti-government conspiracy theorist, John Patrick Bedell, wounded two police officers in March of last year before being shot to death. At the Holocaust Museum in 2009, James W. Von Brunn, a white supremacist, gunned down a security guard before being wounded and subdued by two other security guards. Government officials, of course, have also been targets of the gunmen, as demonstrated so vividly by the recent shootings in Tucson, where Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others were wounded, and one of Giffords’s staff members and a federal judge were among the six dead. Churches Are No Sanctuary from Christian Extremists Two of these shootings took place within the sanctuary of churches. In Wichita in 2009, Dr. George Tiller was gunned down by anti- abortion extremist Scott Roeder. Tiller was serving as an usher during a Sunday morning service at Reformation Lutheran Church when he was shot. The attack in Knoxville, which left two dead and six injured in July 2008, occurred at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church while 25 children were performing Annie Jr. Killer Jim David Adkisson said he hated Democrats and deemed the church part of the “liberal movement.” Adkisson opened fire with a shotgun on an audience of about 200. In Brockton, Massachusetts, in January 2009, neo-Nazi Keith Luke sought to storm a synagogue, but never made it, authorities claim. According to a prosecutor, Luke wanted to “kill as many Jews, blacks, and Hispanics as humanly possible.” In his rampage, he reportedly murdered two Hispanics and raped and wounded a third before, near the synagogue, he was wrestled to the ground by ordinary citizens. Since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing -- initially attributed by numerous media experts to Arab terrorists but actually the work of right-wing militia-movement supporter Timothy McVeigh -- more than 25 law-enforcement officers have been killed by white supremacists, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Extremist Wreckage Pockmarks the American Landscape Beyond the shootings -- and those enumerated above are only a sample of such incidents since 2008 -- there is a landscape of rubble and carnage. In February 2010, Joseph Stack, infuriated by the IRS and U.S. tax policy, crashed his small plane into an Austin office building housing 200 IRS workers, killing himself and two others and injuring 13. Violence, he wrote in a “manifesto,” is “the only answer” to oppressive government policies. Sometimes the wreckage left behind from such incidents is easily overlooked, a roadside crash on a springtime day. In Nashville last March, a motorist was so enraged by an Obama bumper sticker that he rammed his SUV into the offending car, pushing it off the road and onto the sidewalk, leaving a man and his 10-year-old daughter terrified inside. Sometimes the incidents reveal deep emotional wounds. Just before Christmas in 2008, in Belfast, Maine, an abused wife shot and killed her husband, James Cummings, a wealthy California native and Nazi devotee. Loathing Barack Obama, he was planning to join the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement at the time he was shot. Police and federal agents subsequently found radioactive materials and instructions for the making of a “dirty bomb” in his house, according to an FBI document released by WikiLeaks. An FBI official said the materials could all be purchased legally in the
[FairfieldLife] Ringling Beats Animals
http://www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/ (Not for the truly sensitive) Photos reveal that trainers cruelly wrestle baby elephants using ropes, sharp hooks, and electric shocks in order to force them to learn tricks. PETA's circus page: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses.aspx On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:22 PM, RoryGoff wrote: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:32 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too.
[FairfieldLife] Fwd: Quiet Zone Progress Report Jan. 2011 [1 Attachment]
From: bblackm...@natel.net Subject: Quiet Zone Progress Report Jan. 2011 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:40:24 -0600 Fairfield Quiet Zone Progress Report Jan. 2011 There is much progress to report on our Quiet Zone from the last 4 months. This progress is due to two things, as follows: 1) the tireless efforts by City Council member Michael Halley towards our goal, and 2) the expert advice of Andy Mielke from SRF Consulting. I will summarize what has happened from since August of 2010 and then put Michael Halleys full report afterwards, as follows: · August 2010-a diagnostic meeting was held in Fairfield with representatives of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), the City of Fairfield, the Iowa Dept. of Transportation, and other stakeholders. Each of Fairfields RR crossings was analyzed and each stakeholder was able to make recommendations for how to treat each crossing. See Michael Halleys full report below for an explanation of the Constant Warning Time (CWT) circuitry that was the most important issue discussed in the meeting. · October 2010-the City of Fairfield received the green light from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to submit the required Notice of Intent. Once the Notice of Intent is filed with the FRA then there is a mandatory 60 day comment period that follows. The comment period ended in Dec. 2010. · January 2011-FRA officials gave Fairfield the OK to submit our formal application for Quiet Zone status. Fairfields application went in on Jan. 12 of this year. · The application did not include a provision for the CWT mentioned above. The cost estimate for this circuitry on a set of seldom used spur tracks is over $400,000, a clear deal killer for Fairfields Quiet Zone. The FRA has the ability to waive this requirement, and Michael Halley is working with the FRA to this end. · Fairfields City Engineer is preparing a new estimate of the cost of the Quiet Zone based on the recently submitted application. There is no doubt that we will need to raise additional money to complete the project. As soon as the final estimate is available that information will be sent out, and well know what our needs are. Below you will find Michael Halleys full report: Happy New Year Quiet Zone supporters! What makes 2011 such a special year? Well, with a little luck, perseverance, and the continued support of the Fairfield community then this could possibly be the year we establish a Quiet Zone in our fair city. Here's a quick review of what's happened since my last update. We submitted our Notice of Intent back in mid-October, which is required before a municipality can submit an actual quiet zone application. The lag time between filing the NOI and the August 5th diagnostic meeting was the result of the one unresolved issue in this whole process: the lack of Constant Warning Time (CWT) circuitry in the spur track that runs through the 23rd and 9th St. crossings. Technically all tracks within a quiet zone should be equipped with CWT, and BNSF's estimated budget for upgrading both those crossings was $415,000 (a little cost prohibitive). But since we're dealing with a spur line rather than a main line the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the true authority in this matter, is willing to grant some leeway. I initially thought that we had to wait for the FRA to make a decision on the CWT issue before we proceeded with filing our NOI (followed by our application), but then the FRA gave us the green light back in October to submit the NOI. After a required 60-day comment period passed the application can then be submitted. I contacted the regional FRA rep Howard Gillespie back in December then spoke to him in January, and since he couldn't answer all of my questions he gave me the contact info for Ron Ries, who's the head honcho for quiet zones at the FRA headquarters in Washington D.C. Ron and I spoke last week and he explained some of the various technical details that go into their decision regarding the CWT. But he did say that even after they make a ruling that the FRA would work with us on our quiet zone, which makes me feel more hopeful that they're willing to waive the upgrade in order for the project to proceed. One important consideration is that our quiet zone plan will reduce the risk 50% from the current levels, which more than justifies approval of the project as a whole without including the CWT upgrade. (Note: the FRA risk index calculation figures changed slightly in 2011, bringing the overall risk reduction for FF's quiet zone from 45% to 50%, which is very impressive and a great plus for the project). Ron gave me the go ahead to send in the application, which I'm happy to announce, went out today! He asked that the cover letter include a note that the project is contingent upon the CWT ruling, but
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
I can't help it if the dude says funny stuff! PS Sal, its a J-O-K-E.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@... wrote: On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:02 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all. That's because *no one*, including the brussels sprouts wants to put any part of themselves into your mouth! :-) This turning into some kind of fetish for you, Jim? Again? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
Ooops, sorry, I forgot your cardinal rule around here - Thou shalt not make fun of Barry - everyone else is fair game. I think that is pretty much an exact quote. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: I can't help it if the dude says funny stuff! PS Sal, its a J-O-K-E.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:02 PM, whynotnow7 wrote: I've been concerned about vegetables, and how they feel about us eating them. The next time you're serving some, could you ask them for me? I'm especially concerned about the brussel sprouts. Last time I cooked some they didn't seem happy about it at all. That's because *no one*, including the brussels sprouts wants to put any part of themselves into your mouth! :-) This turning into some kind of fetish for you, Jim? Again? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
You remind me of an old bumper sticker I saw in Mad magazine years ago. It said: I love animals. Its people I can't stand --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@... wrote: http://www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/ (Not for the truly sensitive) Photos reveal that trainers cruelly wrestle baby elephants using ropes, sharp hooks, and electric shocks in order to force them to learn tricks. PETA's circus page: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/circuses.aspx On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:22 PM, RoryGoff wrote: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. On Jan 17, 2011, at 10:32 AM, whynotnow7 wrote: Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too.
[FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides
The Indian government should provide drought assistance and better farming methods to help the farmers out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_sthasia_afp/indiafarmingsuicideroadaccident_20110117120832
RE: [FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides The Indian government should provide drought assistance and better farming methods to help the farmers out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_sthasia_afp/indiafarmingsuicideroada ccident_20110117120832 This is one of Amma's priorities: http://www.amma.org/humanitarian-activities/social/farmer-project-report.htm l
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: We get it dude, for the one millionth time: Barry good, TM bad, Barry good, TMers bad, Barry good, Maharishi bad, Barry's teachers good, TM teachers bad, Barry's current location good, all other locations bad, Barry's self- importance good, everyone else's self-importance bad. Boy, is this ever on target, especially the last one. Check. Do you have *anything* inclusive to say, ever?? And put himself on the same level as everyone else? Never.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
Many zoos nowadays are trying to collect rare species in an attempt to maintain those species. An example is the International Crane Foundation in Wisconsin. They even collect eggs that would otherwise be destroyed, raise the chicks and reintroduce the young adults into the wild. Other zoos try to induce animals to reproduce in captivity. Many zoos try their best to replicate the natural environment of the animal. There's a zoo in South Minneapolis that does this. On the other end of the spectrum, I remember the zoo in the Iowa City Park of the 1950's and 60's. It was pretty nasty. I remember the bears and lions pacing back and forth in small cages. I haven't been there recently, but the monkey cages in the Beaver Park Zoo in Cedar Rapids are/were also particularly bad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
Yes, things have improved immensely in terms of animal enclosures. So much so that a tiger was being harassed at the SF Zoo by visitors on Christmas day 2007, jumped out of its moat area, killed one guy and tracked another the length of the zoo before it was shot, sadly. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, SwedaK sweda108@... wrote: Many zoos nowadays are trying to collect rare species in an attempt to maintain those species. An example is the International Crane Foundation in Wisconsin. They even collect eggs that would otherwise be destroyed, raise the chicks and reintroduce the young adults into the wild. Other zoos try to induce animals to reproduce in captivity. Many zoos try their best to replicate the natural environment of the animal. There's a zoo in South Minneapolis that does this. On the other end of the spectrum, I remember the zoo in the Iowa City Park of the 1950's and 60's. It was pretty nasty. I remember the bears and lions pacing back and forth in small cages. I haven't been there recently, but the monkey cages in the Beaver Park Zoo in Cedar Rapids are/were also particularly bad. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I have heard too that such things occur. Before the Ringling Bros. show in San Jose, it is possible to visit the back lot, where the animals are tended. I have spoken with the animal caretakers for that circus and they take good care of the animals. It shows too. They all look quite healthy and well adjusted. Though I have not studied such a thing formally, I have visited zoos my entire life in all parts of the world and it becomes easy to tell if the animals are not being well cared for. So I will leave you on your lonely throne of judgment while I continue to enjoy the circus! :-) * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides
On 01/17/2011 11:04 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides The Indian government should provide drought assistance and better farming methods to help the farmers out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_sthasia_afp/indiafarmingsuicideroada ccident_20110117120832 This is one of Amma's priorities: http://www.amma.org/humanitarian-activities/social/farmer-project-report.html The *real* problem is Monsanto and their evil ways. They go after farmers that aren't using their seeds. Monsanto is in every sense of the word an asura like company. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
On Jan 17, 2011, at 12:22 PM, RoryGoff wrote: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. What did they say ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. Joe, all these people are just trying to get to you and make you respond to them. Attention vampires, the lot of them. None of them would know funny if it walked up and bit them on the ass, and none of them have *ever* had the balls to do anything like you did. That's why they're angry at you. They felt compelled to follow the rules and be good little TMers and never make waves, and they're insanely jealous of anyone who didn't do that, and worse, got away with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Real Objective of the Siddhis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Ooops, sorry, I forgot your cardinal rule around here - Thou shalt not make fun of Barry - everyone else is fair game. I think that is pretty much an exact quote. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: I can't help it if the dude says funny stuff! PS Sal, its a J-O-K-E.:-) HeHe :-) To Rory, I read the posts from bottom up and saw your report from the elephants only now. It certainly was an interesting answer !
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@... wrote: What did they say ? For some reason, Vaj snipped the final portion of the original post, which read thus: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. I will just add, we were both surprised at their response *because* we were aware of the cruelty so often evinced in Circus trainers, as Vaj cites. I would also add that in my experience the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there -- just one more way to vaunt its own compassion and enlightenment and put down the so-called other. I do not write this to excuse the evil but rather to point out one way in which the separate Ego uses so-called enlightenment and holier-than-thou-ness to perpetuate its own ignorance :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Jesus, poor Barry. Sinking deeper and deeper into his own private fantasyland. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. Joe, all these people are just trying to get to you and make you respond to them. Attention vampires, the lot of them. None of them would know funny if it walked up and bit them on the ass, and none of them have *ever* had the balls to do anything like you did. That's why they're angry at you. They felt compelled to follow the rules and be good little TMers and never make waves, and they're insanely jealous of anyone who didn't do that, and worse, got away with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Wow, your psychic abilities are underwheming to say the least. To wit: All of these people...are angry with you. They are insanely jealous... Uh dudeI count Judy as the only one having this conversation with Joe, and she is clearly *not* angry with him. From your perspective, anyone who challenges anything you say is deranged, angry, self-important, a vampire, special, etc, etc, etc. The rest of us, as adults, are just sharing our thoughts on a forum. That's it. Finito. End of story. Why you and some others here are trying to enforce rules about who can respond to who here and how, is strange at best, and has a decidedly antisocial tinge to it. I personally invite you to join in! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. Joe, all these people are just trying to get to you and make you respond to them. Attention vampires, the lot of them. None of them would know funny if it walked up and bit them on the ass, and none of them have *ever* had the balls to do anything like you did. That's why they're angry at you. They felt compelled to follow the rules and be good little TMers and never make waves, and they're insanely jealous of anyone who didn't do that, and worse, got away with it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there...to perpetuate its own ignorance :-) Exactly. After all, if the other out there is causing my problems, why on God's green earth would I want to find any commonality with them, the other? After all it is they who are the cause of all of my problems! Interesting how that choice is ours alone to make, and at the same time provides us no neutral ground. We are either burnishing our separate ego through the demeaning of others, or finding common ground with them and loosening the ego's grip of separation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: What did they say ? For some reason, Vaj snipped the final portion of the original post, which read thus: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. I will just add, we were both surprised at their response *because* we were aware of the cruelty so often evinced in Circus trainers, as Vaj cites. I would also add that in my experience the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there -- just one more way to vaunt its own compassion and enlightenment and put down the so-called other. I do not write this to excuse the evil but rather to point out one way in which the separate Ego uses so-called enlightenment and holier-than-thou-ness to perpetuate its own ignorance :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: Wow, your psychic abilities are underwheming to say the least. To wit: All of these people...are angry with you. They are insanely jealous... Uh dudeI count Judy as the only one having this conversation with Joe, Lawson too. and she is clearly *not* angry with him. Of course not. If I'd been there, I'd have laughed. It was a funny bit. What Lawson and I have both been questioning is whether the fact that only a quarter of the people laughed was a good reason (even if only one of many) to lead Joe to rethink his involvement in TM. Now he's saying that *isn't* what he said, that he did it only for himself and not for anybody else's reaction. But that appears to contradict what he said to start with. From your perspective, anyone who challenges anything you say is deranged, angry, self-important, a vampire, special, etc, etc, etc. The rest of us, as adults, are just sharing our thoughts on a forum. That's it. Finito. End of story. Why you and some others here are trying to enforce rules about who can respond to who here and how, is strange at best, and has a decidedly antisocial tinge to it. Precisely. Well put. Plus which, Barry has to find a way to dump on me while still pretending to ignore me at least once a day or his head will explode. ;-) I personally invite you to join in! :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. Joe, all these people are just trying to get to you and make you respond to them. Attention vampires, the lot of them. None of them would know funny if it walked up and bit them on the ass, and none of them have *ever* had the balls to do anything like you did. That's why they're angry at you. They felt compelled to follow the rules and be good little TMers and never make waves, and they're insanely jealous of anyone who didn't do that, and worse, got away with it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson
I don't think Dupnik simply *complained*, sounded more like an accusation to me. From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 9:48:51 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I'm not sure one has to be arrested to have a court ordered psych evaluation. The point is that there has to be some clear evidence that a person is a danger to him/herself or others for the authorities to get involved. Issuing a threat on someone's life is such evidence; merely looking creepy and making people uncomfortable isn't. One possible problem was that his mother was a Pima county employee. The speculation being that perhaps she may have had some influence on how her son was treated by law enforcement in the county. Aside from the disturbances he caused at Pima College, he didn't *do* anything sufficient for her to need to intervene. The campus police *did* go after him for the classroom and library disturbances, and ultimately the college expelled him and said he would have to have a mental health evaluation before he could be readmitted. And the campus cops came to the Loughner home to explain this to Jared and his parents. There's no indication I'm aware of that he ever did anything to warrant further action by law enforcement, such that there would have been any action for his mother to intervene *in*. So this is really pretty empty speculation, almost certainly motivated by a desire to smear Sheriff Dupnik in retaliation for his having dared to complain about violent rhetoric in Arizona. From: authfriend jstein@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 9:14:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Not sure if he did. However, I did hear a report today that when he walked into a bank, the tellers would feel for the alarm button. Right. He made a lot of people uncomfortable, but that in and of itself isn't grounds for arrest. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@ wrote: Folks, it just doesn't get any crazier than this. A fellow wounded a week ago in the Tucson incident and said Sarah Palin should be incarcerated for *inciting* violence was arrested and sent for a mental health evaluation for going to a Tea Party event and threatening the life of a speaker yesterday. Now, if this guy could have been sent for evaluation, why couldn't Sheriff *Sputnik* do the same to the real crazy guy after many more complaints? Is Loughner known to have publicly threatened anybody's life? I don't recall seeing any reporting to that effect.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A ray of AoE hope for herbivorous guys like BillyG
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: One wonders whether Global Good News will pick up on this story and beam it out over the airwaves as a sign of the impending Age Of Enlightenment. One thing for sure...BillyG will probably not see it with the same sense of alarm as the Japanese government does. :-) More seriously, I'd probably see this study's results as being linked more to overcrowding than anything else. Almost all animals show a diminishment of sex drive when living in overcrowded environments. Japan is overcrowded. Either that, or Japanese boys have been spending far too much time staring at computers and not enough time staring at Japanese girls. If the Japanese government is that concerned about their diminishing birthrate, I'll volunteer to help ..I have a thing for Japanese women. :-) I'd say you are either distorting my position regarding sex outside of marriage or don't understand it, but probably the former. It's sad that the race may be in the throes of extinction, as apparently (in some circles) the drive for procreation is one indicator that that race has run its course. Every race on the planet has its evolutionary place on the ladder of evolution according to Theosophy and Max Heindel. Once that particular race no longer offers opportunities for growth for the evolving jivas (souls) it begins to fade, in effect being outgrown!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Why you and some others here are trying to enforce rules about who can respond to who here and how, is strange at best, and has a decidedly antisocial tinge to it... authfriend: Precisely. Well put. Barry and Joe just got waxed real good. They are both probably very angry now, but they both deserved it after this latest stunt. Good work!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I don't think Dupnik simply *complained*, sounded more like an accusation to me. Clearly, it was a partisan indictment!! He may have blood on HIS hands if he's not careful AND he may have supplied a defense strategy for the shooter! The liberals are doing all they can to link this up to 'right wing' radio, but then liberal democrats play politics with everything!
[FairfieldLife] The Meaning of Omega Point
I was looking for Pere Teilhard de Chardin's ideas on You Tube and found this gem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z09Mt3swaUfeature=related
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Here's the quote: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. They probably don't even know who Rindy was. :-) The bottom line, as I still see it, is that there were very few people who had the stones to poke fun at the things that everybody else was taking oh-so-seriously. I was one of them, and so were you. I worked at TM National and wore ties every day with nude women on them. They were art ties, bought from museum stores, so no one could really say anything, but everyone could tell who they made uptight and who just laughed. I hung with the ones who laughed. I'm still not quite sure why Jerry liked me, and allowed me to live and work at TM National at the same time you did. By that time I had long since developed a rep as a jokester and someone who scoffed at the rules and regs. But for some reason he asked me to take over for Barney Potratz as the Personnel Director there. There were a few instances, when I lived down the hall from you in the dorms there in Pac Pal, when I broke rather sacrosanct rules. (Meaning, I had women spend the night with me, women who made noises that awoke my neighbors.) Others had been kicked out for similar offenses, but somehow I always skated. Maybe Jerry liked me, maybe he saw in me his future with the TM movement...I will never know. At any rate, as you certainly know, I'm with you on the ice cream incident and on the levitating tie incident. I think both are rather *perfect* examples of a spiritual movement that was not only taking itself Far Too Seriously, but was so clueless that it didn't even *know* that it's taking itself Far Too Seriously. Anyone who *couldn't* catch a clue from such incidents and bail is...let's face it...just not worth knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Humor as a time-saving device
One of the aspects of politically-incorrect humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: Here's the quote: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. Right, that's what I was referring to, that last sentence. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) Well, you weren't busted for eating ice cream, as I remember the story, you were busted for leaving the hotel after dark. That you left to get ice cream was irrelevant. and laughing And you weren't busted for laughing, you just incurred some disapproval for your tie stunt, right? well, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. OK. But...if you'd done it only for yourself, how other people reacted shouldn't have mattered. That's all I'm saying. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. I'd have enjoyed it had I been there. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember my story about eating dinner with a bunch of TM long-timers at the TMO hotel on the Jersey shore when the MA-V tech sat down at the table with a plate containing a hunk of very rare beef? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: snip Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. Too funny. More fantasy. (Joe, has it ever seemed to you that I wanted people to think I was part of the TM movement? Or have I repeatedly pointed out that I *wasn't*?) I might note that the reason I was never part of the movement was because I took a look and didn't like what I saw right from the start. It took you guys years to figure out you didn't fit before you bailed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there...to perpetuate its own ignorance :-) Exactly. After all, if the other out there is causing my problems, why on God's green earth would I want to find any commonality with them, the other? After all it is they who are the cause of all of my problems! Interesting how that choice is ours alone to make, and at the same time provides us no neutral ground. We are either burnishing our separate ego through the demeaning of others, or finding common ground with them and loosening the ego's grip of separation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: What did they say ? For some reason, Vaj snipped the final portion of the original post, which read thus: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. I will just add, we were both surprised at their response *because* we were aware of the cruelty so often evinced in Circus trainers, as Vaj cites. I would also add that in my experience the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there -- just one more way to vaunt its own compassion and enlightenment and put down the so-called other. I do not write this to excuse the evil but rather to point out one way in which the separate Ego uses so-called enlightenment and holier-than-thou-ness to perpetuate its own ignorance :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorrect humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
Yep, no more extra night's stay at The Mirage! :-) www.mirage.com --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there...to perpetuate its own ignorance :-) Exactly. After all, if the other out there is causing my problems, why on God's green earth would I want to find any commonality with them, the other? After all it is they who are the cause of all of my problems! Interesting how that choice is ours alone to make, and at the same time provides us no neutral ground. We are either burnishing our separate ego through the demeaning of others, or finding common ground with them and loosening the ego's grip of separation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: What did they say ? For some reason, Vaj snipped the final portion of the original post, which read thus: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. I will just add, we were both surprised at their response *because* we were aware of the cruelty so often evinced in Circus trainers, as Vaj cites. I would also add that in my experience the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there -- just one more way to vaunt its own compassion and enlightenment and put down the so-called other. I do not write this to excuse the evil but rather to point out one way in which the separate Ego uses so-called enlightenment and holier-than-thou-ness to perpetuate its own ignorance :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson
Yes, good thing that the conservatives are all choir boys and such good chums! --- On Mon, 1/17/11, wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com wrote: From: wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lunacy in Tucson To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, January 17, 2011, 3:42 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon mdixon.6569@... wrote: I don't think Dupnik simply *complained*, sounded more like an accusation to me. Clearly, it was a partisan indictment!! He may have blood on HIS hands if he's not careful AND he may have supplied a defense strategy for the shooter! The liberals are doing all they can to link this up to 'right wing' radio, but then liberal democrats play politics with everything! To subscribe, send a message to: fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
What's particularly hilarious (or pathetic, depending on your point of view) is that he finally manages to come up with one limp swipe, and when it crashes and burns, instead of giving up and trying something else, he keeps on in the same vein twice more, and those attempts crash and burn even more spectacularly. It's amazing to me that he's so oblivious to his own transparency. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorrect humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Hada Memorial/ Please forward
There will be a memorial celebrating the life of Hada this sunday at 1 45pm at Argiro Center , Festival Hall. please forward this to everyone in the community. those who didnt know Hada now have a chance to meet this extraordinary man, who recently passed away, His wife Hadani (former Suzanne Potts) welcomes all with open arms. Also, if you would like to bring something for a dessert reception afterwards it would be appreciated .it can be left in the hall on the first floor right side.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Yes. But whose head is it in. Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorre ct humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) Have you found simple, non-threatening, non-provoking ways to convey that to people who see what is in their head, out there? As in a work situation. Some common sense words that allow them to come to that conclusion without igniting inner plastique. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there...to perpetuate its own ignorance :-) Exactly. After all, if the other out there is causing my problems, why on God's green earth would I want to find any commonality with them, the other? After all it is they who are the cause of all of my problems! Interesting how that choice is ours alone to make, and at the same time provides us no neutral ground. We are either burnishing our separate ego through the demeaning of others, or finding common ground with them and loosening the ego's grip of separation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 no_reply@ wrote: What did they say ? For some reason, Vaj snipped the final portion of the original post, which read thus: * * * Just as an anecdotal aside, by chance my wife and I were present at a circus in Florida about 20 years ago, and we were both struck by the strong, self-aware presence of the elephants. We had done some animal-whispering over the years, were concerned about the elephants' welfare, and asked them how they were faring. We were both surprised to get a very strong response along the lines of, Don't bother me; I love it here, from them, along with a *very* strong sense of loyalty to their keepers. I will just add, we were both surprised at their response *because* we were aware of the cruelty so often evinced in Circus trainers, as Vaj cites. I would also add that in my experience the separate Ego *loves* to feel angry, wounded, and self-righteous about the evils out there -- just one more way to vaunt its own compassion and enlightenment and put down the so-called other. I do not write this to excuse the evil but rather to point out one way in which the separate Ego uses so-called enlightenment and holier-than-thou-ness to perpetuate its own ignorance :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: snip And that's all before the first sentence is composed... A real three ring mental circus! :-) Yes. But whose head is it in. Seems to me he immediately went on to acknowledge explicitly whose head it was in: Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. So it looks like your little dig was uncalled for, doesn't it? Maybe next time sit on your twitchy fingers until you've read the entire post.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
Yep, that's why I wrote what I did. I was struck by how out of touch he appears, because of his publicly proclaimed self-imposed exile from so many people's posts on here. It is like he is shouting into a public address system, while wearing earplugs - lol. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: What's particularly hilarious (or pathetic, depending on your point of view) is that he finally manages to come up with one limp swipe, and when it crashes and burns, instead of giving up and trying something else, he keeps on in the same vein twice more, and those attempts crash and burn even more spectacularly. It's amazing to me that he's so oblivious to his own transparency. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorrect humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
lol- Mine. of course. :-) Any resemblance to another's state of mind is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@ wrote: As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Yes. But whose head is it in. Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorre ct humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
I know what you mean about folks who were not there at that time, especially as it relates to dealing with MMY personally. Those of us who chose not to be automatons (or colorless saps) had a fairly easy time finding like minded folk for a time. As time went on, and the rigidity became more and more...well, rigid', it got harder to do much more than conform, I knew that my time in the circus was coming to an end. Re Jerry, once I knew that he was a jazz fan and a big Billie Holiday freak, I had something concrete to relate to in addition to his own very likable persona. (Of course, he was very near to his own exit from the circus by then.) Here on FFL, I still enjoy conversing with everyone when I poke my head in occasionally.everyone save for two: WillyTex , who is like a toddler in his crib..screaming away for someone, anyone to come play with him. For me, attempts at conversing with him are a waste of my time. Tom Pall: my avoidance of this guy is purely based on my observation, from several of his posts, that there is something very wrong going on with him. Not a place I wish to play. When I'm in a mood to look into FFL, I enjoy reading or posting with everyone else, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. (And yes, that includes Judy.) When FFL gets stuck in a loop that I'm not interested in, I usually bail for a while and then check in later to see if the pipe has cleared. Works for me at least for the time being. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. They probably don't even know who Rindy was. :-) The bottom line, as I still see it, is that there were very few people who had the stones to poke fun at the things that everybody else was taking oh-so-seriously. I was one of them, and so were you. I worked at TM National and wore ties every day with nude women on them. They were art ties, bought from museum stores, so no one could really say anything, but everyone could tell who they made uptight and who just laughed. I hung with the ones who laughed. I'm still not quite sure why Jerry liked me, and allowed me to live and work at TM National at the same time you did. By that time I had long since developed a rep as a jokester and someone who scoffed at the rules and regs. But for some reason he asked me to take over for Barney Potratz as the Personnel Director there. There were a few instances, when I lived down the hall from you in the dorms there in Pac Pal, when I broke rather sacrosanct rules. (Meaning, I had women spend the night with me, women who made noises that awoke my neighbors.) Others had been kicked out for similar offenses, but somehow I always skated. Maybe Jerry liked me, maybe he saw in me his future with the TM movement...I will never know. At any rate, as you certainly know, I'm with you on the ice cream incident and on the levitating tie incident. I think both are rather *perfect* examples of a spiritual movement that was not only taking itself Far Too Seriously, but was so clueless that it didn't even *know* that it's taking itself Far Too Seriously. Anyone who *couldn't* catch a clue from such incidents and bail is...let's face it...just not worth knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: I know what you mean about folks who were not there at that time, especially as it relates to dealing with MMY personally. Those of us who chose not to be automatons (or colorless saps) had a fairly easy time finding like minded folk for a time. As time went on, and the rigidity became more and more...well, rigid', it got harder to do much more than conform, I knew that my time in the circus was coming to an end. Re Jerry, once I knew that he was a jazz fan and a big Billie Holiday freak, I had something concrete to relate to in addition to his own very likable persona. (Of course, he was very near to his own exit from the circus by then.) Here on FFL, I still enjoy conversing with everyone when I poke my head in occasionally.everyone save for two: WillyTex , who is like a toddler in his crib..screaming away for someone, anyone to come play with him. For me, attempts at conversing with him are a waste of my time. Tom Pall: my avoidance of this guy is purely based on my observation, from several of his posts, that there is something very wrong going on with him. Not a place I wish to play. When I'm in a mood to look into FFL, I enjoy reading or posting with everyone else, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. (And yes, that includes Judy.) When FFL gets stuck in a loop that I'm not interested in, I usually bail for a while and then check in later to see if the pipe has cleared. Works for me at least for the time being. You are far more tolerant than I, my son. I have a low threshold for boring these days. :-) Good that you're here, though. You, Curtis, and a few others are all that makes the place worth it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. They probably don't even know who Rindy was. :-) The bottom line, as I still see it, is that there were very few people who had the stones to poke fun at the things that everybody else was taking oh-so-seriously. I was one of them, and so were you. I worked at TM National and wore ties every day with nude women on them. They were art ties, bought from museum stores, so no one could really say anything, but everyone could tell who they made uptight and who just laughed. I hung with the ones who laughed. I'm still not quite sure why Jerry liked me, and allowed me to live and work at TM National at the same time you did. By that time I had long since developed a rep as a jokester and someone who scoffed at the rules and regs. But for some reason he asked me to take over for Barney Potratz as the Personnel Director there. There were a few instances, when I lived down the hall from you in the dorms there in Pac Pal, when I broke rather sacrosanct rules. (Meaning, I had women spend the night with me, women who made noises that awoke my neighbors.) Others had been kicked out for similar offenses, but somehow I always skated. Maybe Jerry liked me, maybe he saw in me his future with the TM movement...I will never know. At any rate, as you certainly know, I'm with you on the ice cream incident and on the levitating tie incident. I think both are rather *perfect* examples of a spiritual movement that was not only taking itself Far Too Seriously, but was so clueless that it didn't even *know* that it's taking itself Far Too Seriously. Anyone who *couldn't* catch a clue from such incidents and bail is...let's face it...just not worth knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
The food in this restaurant is ghastly. And such small portions. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I know what you mean about folks who were not there at that time, especially as it relates to dealing with MMY personally. Those of us who chose not to be automatons (or colorless saps) had a fairly easy time finding like minded folk for a time. As time went on, and the rigidity became more and more...well, rigid', it got harder to do much more than conform, I knew that my time in the circus was coming to an end. Re Jerry, once I knew that he was a jazz fan and a big Billie Holiday freak, I had something concrete to relate to in addition to his own very likable persona. (Of course, he was very near to his own exit from the circus by then.) Here on FFL, I still enjoy conversing with everyone when I poke my head in occasionally.everyone save for two: WillyTex , who is like a toddler in his crib..screaming away for someone, anyone to come play with him. For me, attempts at conversing with him are a waste of my time. Tom Pall: my avoidance of this guy is purely based on my observation, from several of his posts, that there is something very wrong going on with him. Not a place I wish to play. When I'm in a mood to look into FFL, I enjoy reading or posting with everyone else, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. (And yes, that includes Judy.) When FFL gets stuck in a loop that I'm not interested in, I usually bail for a while and then check in later to see if the pipe has cleared. Works for me at least for the time being. You are far more tolerant than I, my son. I have a low threshold for boring these days. :-) Good that you're here, though. You, Curtis, and a few others are all that makes the place worth it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. They probably don't even know who Rindy was. :-) The bottom line, as I still see it, is that there were very few people who had the stones to poke fun at the things that everybody else was taking oh-so-seriously. I was one of them, and so were you. I worked at TM National and wore ties every day with nude women on them. They were art ties, bought from museum stores, so no one could really say anything, but everyone could tell who they made uptight and who just laughed. I hung with the ones who laughed. I'm still not quite sure why Jerry liked me, and allowed me to live and work at TM National at the same time you did. By that time I had long since developed a rep as a jokester and someone who scoffed at the rules and regs. But for some reason he asked me to take over for Barney Potratz as the Personnel Director there. There were a few instances, when I lived down the hall from you in the dorms there in Pac Pal, when I broke rather sacrosanct rules. (Meaning, I had women spend the night with me, women who made noises that awoke my neighbors.) Others had been kicked out for similar offenses, but somehow I always skated. Maybe Jerry liked me, maybe he saw in me his future with the TM movement...I will never know. At any rate, as you certainly know, I'm with you on the ice cream incident and on the levitating tie incident. I think both are rather *perfect* examples of a spiritual movement that was not only taking itself Far Too Seriously, but was so clueless that it didn't even *know* that it's taking itself Far Too Seriously. Anyone who *couldn't* catch a clue from such incidents and bail is...let's face it...just not worth knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
You, Curtis, and a few others are all that makes the place worth it. Dude, just a reminder that Curtis hasn't posted here since November 2010, over a month and a half ago. I know you pine for him, but sometimes you just gotta deal with reality.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I know what you mean about folks who were not there at that time, especially as it relates to dealing with MMY personally. Those of us who chose not to be automatons (or colorless saps) had a fairly easy time finding like minded folk for a time. As time went on, and the rigidity became more and more...well, rigid', it got harder to do much more than conform, I knew that my time in the circus was coming to an end. Re Jerry, once I knew that he was a jazz fan and a big Billie Holiday freak, I had something concrete to relate to in addition to his own very likable persona. (Of course, he was very near to his own exit from the circus by then.) Here on FFL, I still enjoy conversing with everyone when I poke my head in occasionally.everyone save for two: WillyTex , who is like a toddler in his crib..screaming away for someone, anyone to come play with him. For me, attempts at conversing with him are a waste of my time. Tom Pall: my avoidance of this guy is purely based on my observation, from several of his posts, that there is something very wrong going on with him. Not a place I wish to play. When I'm in a mood to look into FFL, I enjoy reading or posting with everyone else, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. (And yes, that includes Judy.) When FFL gets stuck in a loop that I'm not interested in, I usually bail for a while and then check in later to see if the pipe has cleared. Works for me at least for the time being. You are far more tolerant than I, my son. I have a low threshold for boring these days. :-) Good that you're here, though. You, Curtis, and a few others are all that makes the place worth it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. They probably don't even know who Rindy was. :-) The bottom line, as I still see it, is that there were very few people who had the stones to poke fun at the things that everybody else was taking oh-so-seriously. I was one of them, and so were you. I worked at TM National and wore ties every day with nude women on them. They were art ties, bought from museum stores, so no one could really say anything, but everyone could tell who they made uptight and who just laughed. I hung with the ones who laughed. I'm still not quite sure why Jerry liked me, and allowed me to live and work at TM National at the same time you did. By that time I had long since developed a rep as a jokester and someone who scoffed at the rules and regs. But for some reason he asked me to take over for Barney Potratz as the Personnel Director there. There were a few instances, when I lived down the hall from you in the dorms there in Pac Pal, when I broke rather sacrosanct rules. (Meaning, I had women spend the night with me, women who made noises that awoke my neighbors.) Others had been kicked out for similar offenses, but somehow I always skated. Maybe Jerry liked me, maybe he saw in me his future with the TM movement...I will never know. At any rate, as you certainly know, I'm with you on the ice cream incident and on the levitating tie incident. I think both are rather *perfect* examples of a spiritual movement that was not only taking itself Far Too Seriously, but was so clueless that it didn't even *know* that it's taking itself Far Too Seriously. Anyone who *couldn't* catch a clue from such incidents and bail is...let's face it...just not worth knowing.
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 15 00:00:00 2011 End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 22 00:00:00 2011 235 messages as of (UTC) Mon Jan 17 23:51:30 2011 35 authfriend jst...@panix.com 25 whynotnow7 whynotn...@yahoo.com 16 TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com 15 blusc0ut no_re...@yahoogroups.com 11 sparaig lengli...@cox.net 11 Joe geezerfr...@yahoo.com 11 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 9 tartbrain no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 cardemaister no_re...@yahoogroups.com 9 WillyTex willy...@yahoo.com 9 RoryGoff roryg...@hotmail.com 7 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 7 Vaj vajradh...@earthlink.net 6 Rick Archer r...@searchsummit.com 6 Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com 5 wgm4u wg...@yahoo.com 5 docwhammo docwha...@yahoo.com 5 Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com 5 Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@lisco.com 5 John jr_...@yahoo.com 3 Yifu Xero yifux...@yahoo.com 3 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 2 nadarrombus royboyun...@yahoo.com 1 yifuxero yifux...@yahoo.com 1 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 1 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 1 dharmacentral no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 SwedaK sweda...@yahoo.com 1 Peter drpetersutp...@yahoo.com 1 Dick Mays dickm...@lisco.com 1 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 1 do.rflex do.rf...@yahoo.com Posters: 33 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughingwell, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. Joe: I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths... Face it, Joe - you and Barry sucked as a spiritual teachers, if your posts here are any indication. You guys even suck as informants!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
Remember, Joe, that you're talking to people who were never a part of the TM movement, although they would like people to think they were. authfriend: Too funny. More fantasy. (Joe, has it ever seemed to you that I wanted people to think I was part of the TM movement? Or have I repeatedly pointed out that I *wasn't*?) I might note that the reason I was never part of the movement was because I took a look and didn't like what I saw right from the start. It took you guys years to figure out you didn't fit before you bailed. From what I've heard, Barry got kicked out of TTC for sneaking out of TTC to buy ice cream from a street vendor and lying about it. Barry was one of those TM Teachers who never got what TM was all about. Joe obviously got kicked out for not reporting initiation fees, which he admitted. They won't tell us what happened to all the money, but the Rama guy apparently spent the money Barry gave him on the purchase of a Mercedes up in Stony Brook. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
TurquoiseB: All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Indian Farmer Suicides
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@... wrote: On 01/17/2011 11:04 AM, Rick Archer wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:47 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Indian Farmer Suicides The Indian government should provide drought assistance and better farming methods to help the farmers out. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110117/wl_sthasia_afp/indiafarmingsuicider\ oada ccident_20110117120832 This is one of Amma's priorities: http://www.amma.org/humanitarian-activities/social/farmer-project-report\ .html The *real* problem is Monsanto and their evil ways. They go after farmers that aren't using their seeds. Monsanto is in every sense of the word an asura like company. http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India Can't agree more... Monsanto voted Most Evil Corporation of the Year by NaturalNews readers Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html#ixzz1BLwk6oEj http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html#ixzz1BLwk6oEj
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: Here's the quote: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughing This happened to me, too. I snuck out a few times with a friend and we headed to town, sat on the balcony of one of those charming Swiss cafes, and had coupes (hot fudge sundaes). They were fabulous, the view of the Alps spectacular, and the sense of escaping the program for an hour just exhilarating. We did not stop laughing the entire time. Another time we decided to sample the Swiss potato dish called rosti - . It was also a good feeling to get back to the hotel and close our eyes and meditate the afternoon away. I had some wonderful times on some of those courses. I remember MMY speaking in our lecture hall while snow fell outside the glass windows behind him. There were huge mountains in view. It was truly a postcard scene and the darshan from him (self generated maybe, but he evoked it) unbelievable. Whatever else might have been going on, there was a level of something powerfully spiritual that permeated us all. I treasure that. well, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
LOL..several different responses with superficial variations to the same post by Joe confirm that you are not off-base here. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, whynotnow7 whynotnow7@... wrote: As you continue to talk to yourself Barry, I can't help but think how difficult it is for you to attempt a post these days. I imagine inside your head: Hmmm, let's see I'll start out by mentioning Judy's post...no, dammmit, I have said before I don't read her stuff...Did I say I never read Sparaig's stuff? Don't remember...I'll play it safe, and refer to these people. Then Jim will know...oh shit, I have publicly said I don't read his stuff too...wait, there's Rory. I've mentioned I *hardly ever* read his stuff. so that gives me an out and I can mention him by name and no one can accuse me of lying, those vampire attention seekers...and then raunchydog and Willy...oh wait, shit, foiled again...they are also on my publicly don't read/privately eat-it-up-with-a-spoon list...H...got it!...I can claim again I don't give a shit, and that is my perfect out: I DON'T CARE...I'll write it in caps and that will really show daddy...er, I mean FFL And that's all before the first sentence is composed...A real three ring mental circus! :-) Note: for all of those offended in advance, my thoughts above are mine alone and any resemblance to real persons dead or alive is purely coincidental. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB turquoiseb@ wrote: One of the aspects of politically-incorrect humor that the politically-correct will never get is the usefulness of inappropriate humor in determining who, among the people one finds oneself working or living with, is actually *worth* associating with. All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little. Tell a joke that pokes fun at things most in the environment are too guru-whipped to poke fun at. Do something that breaks the rules, but in a way that only a fool would make an issue of it, because to do so would be to reveal them as the fools they are. Do this enough times, and you are able to suss out who in your environment is worthy of hanging with (in the sense of potential friends) and who is just there in the environment taking up space and not really worth bothering with overmuch. There are times when I think that Jerry put up with my antics because he was a closet button pusher himself, but his position in the movement didn't allow him to act it out the way he would have if he just hadn't given a shit. There is a certain freedom in not giving a shit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) Have you found simple, non-threatening, non-provoking ways to convey that to people who see what is in their head, out there? As in a work situation. Some common sense words that allow them to come to that conclusion without igniting inner plastique. Great question. Being, simple and non-threatening, is indeed the key. I don't really do anything, as there is nothing really to be done. It's the old principle of the second element -- we don't fight the dark; we simply turn on the light. Mostly, it's simple, Now-focused ahimsa whole-heartedly embracing whatever pain arises. Presence speaks to Presence; Love kindles Love, Joy delights in Joy; Freedom remembers Itself, and the pain dissolves in relief. Most of our communication is non-verbal, after all :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
Nicely put..:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) Have you found simple, non-threatening, non-provoking ways to convey that to people who see what is in their head, out there? As in a work situation. Some common sense words that allow them to come to that conclusion without igniting inner plastique. Great question. Being, simple and non-threatening, is indeed the key. I don't really do anything, as there is nothing really to be done. It's the old principle of the second element -- we don't fight the dark; we simply turn on the light. Mostly, it's simple, Now-focused ahimsa whole-heartedly embracing whatever pain arises. Presence speaks to Presence; Love kindles Love, Joy delights in Joy; Freedom remembers Itself, and the pain dissolves in relief. Most of our communication is non-verbal, after all :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, RoryGoff rorygoff@ wrote: Right on, Jim! Personally, I have found Byron Katie's turn-arounds to be supremely useful in showing me how out there was *always* a reflection of in here -- and zap! Just like that, the Egoic separation and suffering dissolves in a burst of delight :-) Have you found simple, non-threatening, non-provoking ways to convey that to people who see what is in their head, out there? As in a work situation. Some common sense words that allow them to come to that conclusion without igniting inner plastique. Great question. Being, simple and non-threatening, is indeed the key. I don't really do anything, as there is nothing really to be done. It's the old principle of the second element -- we don't fight the dark; we simply turn on the light. Mostly, it's simple, Now-focused ahimsa whole-heartedly embracing whatever pain arises. Presence speaks to Presence; Love kindles Love, Joy delights in Joy; Freedom remembers Itself, and the pain dissolves in relief. Most of our communication is non-verbal, after all :-) Thanks, but those types of phrases are not going to work in a corporate work situation in guiding others to get out of the narrative in their head and to look at what is.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
The thing about the ice cream caper, is that when I was asked about it by one of the German TM gestapo (those who were there know exactly what I am referring to and know gestapo is the correct designation) the words used were: it has been reported that you have been leaving the hotel to eat coupe denmarks in town. Is this so? I'll never forget the wording since I laughed so much about it later. Was it that I walked the 100 yards or so into town or the ice cream? I dunno. That point wasn't important to me at the time. I had been questioned about walking from my hotel to get ice cream. That's what was so absurd about the thing. I missed your story about the beef but I'd love to hear it in full detail. Andy Kaufman of course famously sat in the Seelisberg dining hall and with great flourish and a long holder, lit a cigarette. When I heard that I would have given anything to be there to see the reactions. Andy had a superb sense of theater. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Here's the quote: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. Right, that's what I was referring to, that last sentence. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) Well, you weren't busted for eating ice cream, as I remember the story, you were busted for leaving the hotel after dark. That you left to get ice cream was irrelevant. and laughing And you weren't busted for laughing, you just incurred some disapproval for your tie stunt, right? well, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. OK. But...if you'd done it only for yourself, how other people reacted shouldn't have mattered. That's all I'm saying. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. I'd have enjoyed it had I been there. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) Remember my story about eating dinner with a bunch of TM long-timers at the TMO hotel on the Jersey shore when the MA-V tech sat down at the table with a plate containing a hunk of very rare beef? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
IndeedI felt, and feel very much the same way. When people ask me if I regret my time in the circus I say No, not a second of it! Yeah, I suppose I could have cut it short by a few years, but it was an incredible life lesson that I do not regret in any way. In fact I'm grateful for it all, especially the meditation which I continue to do every morning to this day. I do it for one reason only: it feels good and is as natural to me as brushing my teeth. (And I like clean teeth.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wayback71 wayback71@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Here's the quote: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. When you get busted for eating ice cream (another story) and laughing This happened to me, too. I snuck out a few times with a friend and we headed to town, sat on the balcony of one of those charming Swiss cafes, and had coupes (hot fudge sundaes). They were fabulous, the view of the Alps spectacular, and the sense of escaping the program for an hour just exhilarating. We did not stop laughing the entire time. Another time we decided to sample the Swiss potato dish called rosti - . It was also a good feeling to get back to the hotel and close our eyes and meditate the afternoon away. I had some wonderful times on some of those courses. I remember MMY speaking in our lecture hall while snow fell outside the glass windows behind him. There were huge mountains in view. It was truly a postcard scene and the darshan from him (self generated maybe, but he evoked it) unbelievable. Whatever else might have been going on, there was a level of something powerfully spiritual that permeated us all. I treasure that. well, it's time to exit. It took a few more years but I finally did. I can see where you are making that connection from the way I wrote it, but this was just a reminder, in a long line of events...that the TMO and I were on diverging paths. That particular day I got huge pleasure out of my little joke.and others joked about it with me for weeks afterwards, both those who were there and those who weren't. It really had nothing to do with the particular division of who laughed and who didn't. I'm sure I had a pretty good idea in advance who would respond to it well and who wouldn't. (Rindy and a few of the Rindette's were in there, that I do remember. No laughing from them, that's for sure!) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Well, Joe, you explicitly said (quoted below) that the fact that only a quarter of them laughed started what was the first real crack in my belief system. Maybe you miswrote, but that *is* what you said. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Nope, that wasn't my mind set then or now. I did it for me. If anyone else thought it was funny, great. I never expected everyone, or even a majority to join in. Anyone who was on those courses knows that there were those who tried to completely shut out the outside world and there were those who did not. I had a little posse that I could discuss current music and film with during the years I was there. Naturally, those people found humor in this. Some others didn't. It wasn't a big deal at the time. As I first said, I consider this one of the my fondest memories of my time there, certainly not one of the worst because not enough people laughed. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@ wrote: Did I ever say I expected everyone or all other participants to laugh along with me? No. I laughed and that was good enough for me. C'mon, Joe, not only was that not enough for you, it wasn't enough for you that a quarter of them *did* laugh: Tellingly, about 1/4 of the group thought it was hilarious. The rest were horrified and made it clear that this enlightenment business was NO laughing matter. I think that was probably the moment that the first real crack in my belief system started. I'll tell you, if a quarter of any group I participated in shared my sense of humor, I'd consider that plenty.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Ringling Beats Animals
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain no_reply@... wrote: Thanks, but those types of phrases are not going to work in a corporate work situation in guiding others to get out of the narrative in their head and to look at what is. Oh, sorry. I thought you were asking about how I, personally, interact with people. As you know, Byron Katie has worked out a beautiful system to guide others out of their narrative; I doubt I could improve on it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: The thing about the ice cream caper, is that when I was asked about it by one of the German TM gestapo (those who were there know exactly what I am referring to and know gestapo is the correct designation) Like the armed guardian of Shankaraacaarya Vaasudevaananda, January 12th 2011?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Humor as a time-saving device
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: TurquoiseB: All one has to do to tell the difference is push the envelope a little... Was that guy in the pic, by any chance, transsexual?? :0
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Dome Numbers
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Joe geezerfreak@... wrote: The thing about the ice cream caper, is that when I was asked about it by one of the German TM gestapo (those who were there know exactly what I am referring to and know gestapo is the correct designation) the words used were: it has been reported that you have been leaving the hotel to eat coupe denmarks in town. Is this so? I'll never forget the wording since I laughed so much about it later. Was it that I walked the 100 yards or so into town or the ice cream? I dunno. That point wasn't important to me at the time. I had been questioned about walking from my hotel to get ice cream. That's what was so absurd about the thing. The fascinating thing is that all these years later you still have people on this forum pretending that interrogating a person over eating ice cream is a normal thing, or a good thing. I think it's because many of them submitted to stuff just as absurd for years...or decades, and they don't like the implication that they were spineless wusses for doing it, or for never noticing how insane it all was.
